Use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research: Confessions of a research infidel

References

• Bedrosian, J. (1995). Limitations in the use of nondisabled sub-jects in AAC research. Augmentative and Alternative Commu-nication, 11, 6–10.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D., Jones, R., & Rowan, M. (1989). Frequency of word usage by nondisabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 5, 243–248.
   Google Scholar
• Blau, A. F., (1987). Communication in the back-channel: Social structural analyses of nonspeech/speech conversations (Doc-toral dissertation, City University of New York, 1984). Disser-tation Abstracts International, 47,3237A.
   Google Scholar
• Fried-Oken, M., & More, L. (1992). An initial vocabulary for non-speaking preschool children based on developmental and environmental language sources. Augmentative and Alterna-tive Communication, 8, 41–56.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, J. A. (1975). A system for the transfer of instructions in natural settings. Semiotica, 14, 269–296.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J. (1982). That's just the point: The achieve-ment of turntaking between an augmentative systems user and his therapist. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J. (1986). Message formulation using augmentative communication systems: Studies in social communica-tion and interaction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts, 47, 158B.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J. (1989). The interplay of communication device output mode and interaction style between nonspeak-ing persons and their speaking partners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54,320–333.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J. (1992a). Using nondisabled persons in AAC Research. In A. Newel & J. Light (Eds.), Augmentative Com-munication Research: Proceedings from the Second Interna-tional Symposia on Augmentative Communication.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J. (1992b). A comparative evaluation of the keystroke efficiency of five augmentative communication tech-nologies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J. (in progress). Augmentative communication strategy use across word and mixed speech output methods. Research in progress. University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J., & Bedrosian, J. (1955). Subject selection in AAC research: Decision points. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 11–13.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J., Drazek, A., Kowarsky, K., Scally, C., & Segal, E. (1994). Discourse comprehension of synthetic speech delivered at normal and slow presentation rates. Aug-mentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 191–202.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J., Mathy-Laikko, P., & Yoder, D. E. (1988). Studying conversations of augmentative systems users. In L. Bernstein (Ed.), The vocally impaired: Clinical practice and research (pp. 265–294). New York: Grune & Stratton.
   Google Scholar
• Logan, J. S., Greene, B. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 566–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marvin, C., Beukelman, D., Brockhaus, J., & Kast, L. (1994). "What are you talking about?": Semantic analysis of pre-school children's conversational topics in home and preschool settings. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 75–86.
   Google Scholar
• Mirenda, P., & Beukelman, D. R. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 120–128.
   Google Scholar
• Mirenda, P., Eicher, D., & Beukelman, D. R. (1989). Synthetic and natural speech preferences of male and female listeners in four age groups. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 175–183.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mizuko, M. (1987). Transparency and ease of learning of symbols represented by Blissymbolics, PCS and Picsyms. Augmenta-tive and Alternative Communication, 3,129–136.
   Google Scholar
• Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Constraints on the perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 235–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ratcliff, A. (1994). Comparison of relative demands implicated in direct selection and scanning: Implications from normal children. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 67–74.
   Google Scholar
• Scally, C. (1994). The effects of synthesized speech output on interactions involving augmentative systems users. Unpub-lished master's thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Sweidel, G. B. (1991/1992). Management strategies in the com-munication of speaking persons and persons with a speech disability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25, 195–214.
   Google Scholar
• Yovetich, W. S., & Young, T. A. (1988). The effects of repre-sentativeness and concreteness on the guessability of Blissymbols. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 35–39.
   Google Scholar